79 replies to this topic

[jaydfox]

If this became policy, it would affect all members, even basic members, so in a rare move, I will open the discussion up to the entire membership for comment. Anticipating heated exchanges, this topic will be moderated:
::This Topic Will Follow CIRA Guidelines::
Read here: http://www.imminst.org/cira


http://www.imminst.o...=pid&pid=154654

And the only way members can decide if the moderator is out of line, is by seeing the moderator logs.

lightowl, to give you an idea of where things may be headed, I'm going to repost something I posted recently in discussion with the directors:

In the past, I brought up my desire to see a new class of moderators whose task was to help moderate their respective fora, without necessarily being part of the "inner circle" of leadership. This way we could scale up the number of moderators without having too many cooks in the leadership kitchen. They would essentially be full members given moderation powers over one or more top-level categories in the forum.

If we're to get more aggressive on moderating, one thing I think we need is redundancy in moderators and a more uniform policy on when/how to moderate. This should be a lot easier once we get the new forum software in place, as we should even be able to set up a system where users can self-moderate the fora, by flagging/voting on posts and topics (assuming this is desireable).

To elaborate, my idea here would be a new "moderation" forum in the full member area, where these new moderators can discuss with each other and the other full members, where full members' concerns and opinions can be voiced, etc. Combined with a system for flagging and/or voting on posts and topics, I think the full members could self-manage the forum and it would be a lot more open, and it would fascilitate the accountability the users are asking for.

More serious issues, or those requiring "secrecy" due to privacy or security concerns, would be handled by the Navigators, in their forum, etc.

I'm not saying this is definitely where things are headed, but it may give you an idea of what I foresee. More participation by the full members in the moderation process, with open discussion on moderation. If we open up moderation logs to a certain extent, this should only help things out more.

By opening up moderation logs "to a certain extent", I'm referring to the fact that some moderation actions will have to be redacted for various reasons. I haven't figured out all the details in my head yet, but I'm working on it. Essentially, once the moderation logs are opened up, they would default to being visible by full membership, with the option to redact so that only leadership can see the logs. If logs are redacted, this would be clearly marked for leaders, so we in leadership would be able to keep tabs on who is "hiding" their logs and why, to make sure they aren't abusing their power. You could say that this still gives leadership the option of secrecy and whatnot, but bear in mind that we have a lot of leaders, so short of trying to assume a full-fledged conspiracy by every member of leadership, there's still something to be said for checks and balances from within.

Anyway, I have a lot of ideas to be implemented, but first things first: I need to get the forum upgraded. Then hypothetical discussions can more easily translate into demo systems for testing ideas.

Please discuss. Discuss my ideas, lightowl's ideas, or the concept in general. All I ask is that you stay on topic and try to remain civil about it. Again, this topic will be moderated if necessary to follow CIRA guidelines.

[jaydfox]

Quoting from another thread for discussion here:
http://www.imminst.o...=pid&pid=154657

As for moderation logs, I simply do not agree. I have asked that the offending material be kept there as evidence whenever possible for a number of reasons, as well as a lot of personal data that should not be public even to the Full Membership. I think that one reason an organization like this has as many leaders as it does is to help ensure that we police one another.

http://www.imminst.o...=pid&pid=154673

As for opening up the moderation logs, I am very much against it. They are open to leadership and there is too much information in there that potentially compromises individual privacy and should not be made public. If you are so curious to see them then get a job in leadership and share the responsibility that comes with authority

I think the day-to-day moderation logs could be opened up**. Simple things like merging threads, moving threads to the catcher*, deleting spam posts, minor censorship (ad hominems or whatever we agree is acceptable for minor censorship). If the moderation action was done for privacy, security, or legal reasons, then yes, I agree that the moderation logs should be redacted in those specific cases until and unless leadership approves releasing them.

* Which reminds me, have we put that back yet? I'll create it in a little bit if it's not there.

** By the way, I'm mostly referring to the logs on a go-forward basis. And I'm not referring so much to the moderator log threads most leaders keep in the navigators forum, but the actual logs in the database. But yes, the moderator log threads as well.

Edit at Feb 16 2007-21:09 PST: Added an additional quote of Lazarus Long's, to maintain coherency in discussion.

Edited by jaydfox, 17 February 2007 - 05:09 AM.

[zoolander]

Please note, if you are not familiar with the CIRA guidelines I suggest you read them before getting involved in this topic.

In short, CIRA Guidelines are here to help cultivate excellent thought provoking discussion. Members are encouraged to follow these guidelines closely when CIRA Guidelines are enacted under a specific topic.

Please do not post a response if you do not agree with these guidelines. Comments that do not follow these guidelines may be removed at any time.

[lightowl]

I do not agree with the CIRA guidelines, as I see them as another layer of censorship. I also don't care about people following the CIRA guidelines, because I have the ability to sort the bull shit from the real shit. I accept that some people don't have that ability, and I accept they choose to have other people make the distinctions, but I do not accept to be forced to have other people decide for me.

I have suggested several technical and political solutions to let people make their own choices. I have also suggested steps to make it transparent when choice is taken away from you.

For some reason there is strong resistance to freedom of expression and choice on this board. I think this resistance is there because some people are linked to the institute, and for some reason thinks everything said in the boards reflects on them. This is a real problem because people here are of varying convictions. I think the solution to this communication problems is not censorship, but action to communicate that the community is open to a large scale of different people who are not necessarily synonymous with the institute itself.

This topic is about transparency into a process that by definition likes to be hidden. It is about showing you what they don't want others to know about you. Would you like to know what they want to hide?

[jaydfox]

I do not agree with the CIRA guidelines, as I see them as another layer of censorship.

In general, I agree. However, when someone has an item that is up for discussion with the intent of reaching one or more decisions, CIRA guidelines become an important tool. Perhaps at the crux of this is whether I have the right to censor content within a discussion I start. As a moderator, I also have the power to enforce the guidelines, but any member can request CIRA guidelines be followed in their own threads, and ask for moderators to help enforece. If you don't like it, you can start your own thread.

Moving towards a system where full members participate in the moderation process (both on policy and on actual enforcement), we need to hash out a system that respects everyone's rights. You have the right to free speech in public, but not on my property, so to speak. I can always ask you to vacate my property, and likewise, I should have the ability to request moderation of threads I post under the CIRA guidelines.

[basho]

...a system for flagging and/or voting on posts and topics, I think the full members could self-manage the forum and it would be a lot more open, and it would fascilitate the accountability the users are asking for.

Maybe that's all that's needed, something as simple as a method for flagging and/or voting on topics and posts by full members. Any entries that hit a certain threshold get automatically moved to a catcher (no moderator involvement). Everyone can see the catcher entries, and moderation becomes a group decision not dependent on any one individual with special access privileges.

Some other suggestions:
- Whatever is implemented, privacy protection should be fundamental.
- Ensure the catcher can't be indexed by web crawlers so that the wacky stuff doesn’t get associated with ImmInst as a result of google searches

[jaydfox]

For some reason there is strong resistance to freedom of expression and choice on this board.

I was once on the free speech bandwagon, a couple years ago, when William O'Rights was active. Things in 2006 got very complicated for leadership and especially for the directors, in terms of privacy issues, security issues, and even legal issues surrounding libel, liability of various sorts, etc.

Pragmatically, there was only so much we directors could have done, and admittedly we could have done better, but I'm not sure how much better. In trying to defend the institute and various individuals' privacy, I think we directors* got a little overreactive at times and closed ourselves off from the counsel of our leaders and full members. Once bitten, twice shy, so to speak. Various destructive elements have been weeded out, and the directorship has learned to better balance the--at times--diametrically oppposed interests of security and transparency. With some careful prodding by a few sincere full members, and with the guidance of the leadership over the past month, we're making progress towards a real paradigm shift in how leadership runs this institute with the full members' support.

I see a more libertarian approach to free speech issues on the way, and yet I must admit that given our mission and our intent to see it be our primary focus, some leaders are desirous to see a more effective moderation policy that prevents destructive elements from slowing our work. However, I think a self-moderation system instituted by the full members will free up time for leaders and make this point moot. Technical solutions will also assist, though I have doubts about what you're describing. Perhaps I just don't quite see what you envision.**

I myself am seeing things quite a bit differently, and I also feel somewhat more free to be open, now that the mantle of directorship doesn't rest on my shoulders. I ask patience, but also acknowledge the reasons for a lack thereof at times.

* I say "we directors", because I still was a director just a couple days ago, coming off a two-year term.

** Edit at Feb 16 2007-21:24: added paragraph, kept it in this post to keep things streamlined.

[lightowl]

As for opening up the moderation logs, I am very much against it. They are open to leadership and there is too much information in there that potentially compromises individual privacy and should not be made public.

I don't see what information warrants this privacy concern. Could you give an example?

If you are so curious to see them then get a job in leadership and share the responsibility that comes with authority.

No, that would be surrendering the issue. One of the reasons I suspect many in leadership don't care about this issue. After all, they already have access to this information, and they are also less likely to be moderated because that's just how friendship leaderships work.

[lightowl]

Link to original suggestion for opening up moderation logs and giving recall powers to full members.
Censorship in moderation

Perhaps at the crux of this is whether I have the right to censor content within a discussion I start

I agree you should have the option to censor threads you start, but readers should have the option to remove that barrier on an individual basis. That should solve the problem that topics run amok and becomes useless to some.

If you don't like it, you can start your own thread.

Yes, I could, but would that be moderated away because of redundancy? (kidding... or am I)

You have the right to free speech in public, but not on my property, so to speak

This is absolutely the crux of the matter. You don't want me shouting on your property because it reflects on you. But the power of an open community is that the communication does not reflect on anyone. The reflection is expressed on an individual basis, so if I express I love Jesus, my opinions in general may reflect back on anyone who love Jesus, unless they actively distance themselves from either me or any specific opinions I express. Ideally that is the way this community should function (IMHO).

[Lazarus Long]

No, that would be surrendering the issue.

easy for you to say and frankly just a cop out IMHO that I will tolerate because you are on the outside looking in.

One of the reasons I suspect many in leadership don't care about this issue. After all, they already have access to this information, and they are also less likely to be moderated because that's just how friendship leaderships work.

First of all we are not all friends but we have learned about one another and earned each other's respect. We work together and if that means we can also become friends that is a bonus but first of all we share one common goal, the mission of this organization and apart from that many of us come from very different backgrounds and political persuasion, in fact that helps keep us honest I suspect.

I don't see what information warrants this privacy concern. Could you give an example?

As Jay has said some of it is inconsequential and can be released to the Full Members but also some of it is associated with personal information that should not be shared. we also have examples of pornographic spam and commercial posts that are moved with cause and sharing them would be counter productive to why they were removed in the first place.

As for CIRA guidelines they are not always appropriate or applied but when they are are asked for they should be enforced.

[Lazarus Long]

The reflection is expressed on an individual basis, so if I express I love Jesus, my opinions in general may reflect back on anyone who love Jesus, ..

Sure if you are in the religion forum doing so but if you are preaching in bio-science expect to be deleted or at the very least split off and put in the religion area for consistency.

BTW, Full members and Basic members don't have the same rights to access or expression either that is one of the perks of paying your dues. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that as a full member you are a part of a privileged class?

[lightowl]

easy for you to say and frankly just a cop out IMHO that I will tolerate because you are on the outside looking in.

What does that mean exactly? Are you implying that I wont do any actual work? Please explain.

First of all we are not all friends but we have learned about one another and earned each other's respect. We work together and if that means we can also become friends that is a bonus but first of all we share one common goal, the mission of this organization and apart from that many of us come from very different backgrounds and political persuasion, in fact that helps keep us honest I suspect.

Is that a reason for us to trust there is no special treatment in discussions in regards to moderation? Why not just show us the data so we can all be friends?

As Jay has said some of it is inconsequential and can be released to the Full Members but also some of it is associated with personal information that should not be shared. we also have examples of pornographic spam and commercial posts that are moved with cause and sharing them would be counter productive to why they were removed in the first place.

Here is the information that would be of value
1. Screen name of Moderator
2. Screen name or Poster
3. Post that was modified in original state
4. Post that was modified in modified state
5. Time of change.

To solve the problem of removed data remaining available to the public, the log items could lapse into an obsolete state where they will only be available upon request or to leadership.

As for CIRA guidelines they are not always appropriate or applied but when they are asked for they should be enforced.

Yes, but should it be possible to opt-out of that enforcement if you don't mind reading the "clutter"?

Sure if you are in the religion forum doing so but if you are preaching in bio-science expect to be deleted or at the very least split off and put in the religion area for consistency.

That does not matter. My opinions would still reflect unto the institute and its members, and that would be a reason to remove them.

BTW, Full members and Basic members don't have the same rights to access or expression either that is one of the perks of paying your dues. Are you uncomfortable with the fact that as a full member you are a part of a privileged class?

Yes, I am very uncomfortable with the class division of this community. If I could pay to see leadership discussions I would, but that does not mean I like it.

[zoolander]

All the accusations made by you lightowl are heresay. If you want to see certain peice of information then all you need to do is ask. If that information is deemed public information then you have a right to see it. If the information is not contained within a public forum you can still ask but the institute will first need to consider whether it is in the best interest of the institure to release such information for reasons given above by Jay.

From what I see, there are a handful of members who for some reason believe that they is some sort of scandle/conspiracy going on behind closed doors. That is not the case. I'm a straight shooter and honestly, if other directors were scheming behind closed doors I would have a few words to say. It really pisses me off to see people slander the leadership. It's a sign of disrespect if you ask me, considering the long hours we all put in to work towards fulfilling the institutes mission.

CIRA

C- courteous.
I- informative and informed
R- relevant.
A - accessible.

[lightowl]

Zoolander, I am not making accusations. I am making suggestions to improve communication and *avoid* some of the eventualities that you may interpret as accusations.

If you read my posts again, with an open mind, you will notice that I am actually asking for information, as you suggest I do.

How would you feel if I could censor your posts without you knowing about it? Is that an idle question?

You also imply that I don't work to advance the mission. I suggest you make my acquaintance, as I have been very active on a number of projects.

[zoolander]

I've read over the post again and agree. You are not making accusations but you appear to be making suggestions. Suggestions that a group of friends are scheming behind closed doors. Perhaps the word accusation was a little strong.

Lightowl, I'm generally peaved at the lack of trust coming from some of the members. Perhaps when I read your suggestions my thoughts were tainted.

I've said this so many times over the last few days. We, in leadership, are doing our best to resolve the issues in the best interest of both the 1) instutute and it's mission and 2) our valuable contributing members.

[jaydfox]

Yes, but should it be possible to opt-out of that enforcement if you don't mind reading the "clutter"?

Typically, the moderators split "clutter" off into new topics if and when it's deemed valuable, but otherwise off topic. Granted, this is a subjective decision, and I can see where you're coming from with respect to making that decision for yourself.

Clutter needs to be physically removed from the thread because those who "opt in" to viewing the clutter may quote and reply to it within the same thread, defeating the purpose of having it moderated in the first place. However, that doesn't mean we couldn't somehow have a companion thread for the clutter to get moved to instead of being deleted. However, this goes back to the original suggestion I posed: If you don't like it, you can start your own thread.

So what this would really lead to is a default policy where material moderated from a CIRA thread would be placed in a companion thread, which could be easily ignored by those who want to ignore it. If this isn't entirely satisfactory, we could look into technical options to tightly bind the two threads for convenience's sake. But the overriding concern is that moderated material should stay moderated, so the system breaks down if people inadvertently reply to or quote moderated material within the original thread.

[lightowl]

Lightowl, I'm generally peaved at the lack of trust coming from some of the members

Lack of trust is sometimes a result of unwillingness to share information. If that information is relevant to any party, that party has a strong likeliness not to trust the party with the information.

If we are to trust each other in this community, then this information must become available to those it involves.

[lightowl]

Clutter needs to be physically removed from the thread because those who "opt in" to viewing the clutter may quote and reply to it within the same thread, defeating the purpose of having it moderated in the first place.

Yes, except the quoted text in a new post would then be moderated again to follow the guidelines, and everybody will be happy (with the exception of the moderator of course )

However, that doesn't mean we couldn't somehow have a companion thread for the clutter to get moved to instead of being deleted. However, this goes back to the original suggestion I posed: If you don't like it, you can start your own thread.

Except that the information removed from the original thread is either deleted (in the case of no shadow thread) or taken out of context (in the case of a shadow thread). A better solution would be to flag a moderated post as moderated, with a reference to the original post. That way it will be easy (technically) to recall the original thread instead of the moderated one.

So what this would really lead to is a default policy where material moderated from a CIRA thread would be placed in a companion thread, which could be easily ignored by those who want to ignore it. If this isn't entirely satisfactory, we could look into technical options to tightly bind the two threads for convenience's sake. But the overriding concern is that moderated material should stay moderated, so the system breaks down if people inadvertently reply to or quote moderated material within the original thread.

I think I covered this with additional moderation of the CIRA version of the thread. This would also have the bonus effect that moderators would have an incentive to moderate as little as possible to avoid "compound moderating"

[eternaltraveler]

I see a more libertarian approach to free speech issues on the way, and yet I must admit that given our mission and our intent to see it be our primary focus, some leaders are desirous to see a more effective moderation policy that prevents destructive elements from slowing our work.

I am a libertarian. I vote libertarian. But this is not the free speech institute. This is the Immortality Institute. We have a very specific mission and function. And quite frankly having a total free for all would be disastrous for the mission, at least as far as any effect our organization could hope to have on it. If someone proselytizes in the SENS forum it's going in the garbage heap. We need to be professional. It isn’t about making me look good, or Laz, or any individual. We have the free speech forum as it is, which is basically a total play pen. Anyone can post whatever they want in there as long as they don't break the law in doing so (that being US law where imminst is incorporated).

[eternaltraveler]

Jay I understand the need for having another class of moderators, but in the past most anyone who's been willing to be a part of leadership has been brought in. Where do you expect to find all these new moderators? )

[jaydfox]

From people who complain too much )

[eternaltraveler]

From people who complain too much )

thats how I got in )

[lightowl]

We have a very specific mission and function

Oh, I thought this was a community. Perhaps I was mistaking. This is the place to meet and communicate with Immortalists right?

[jaydfox]

This is the place to meet and communicate with Immortalists right?

That is but one function served by the institute. If the sole purpose of the institute was to provide a place for immortalists to shoot the breeze, then you wouldn't see so much resistance to your ideas. Alas, for some of us, it is far more than a place to hang out. I assume it is for you as well, and that you're playing devil's advocate or whatever.

[lightowl]

I am just tired of arrogant people telling other people what to do and say. I am making suggestions in an effort to make a better more open community, and frankly I don't see much point in arguing this case anymore.

[eternaltraveler]

of course there's a point in arguing the case.

This discussion already has started wheels spining to bring things perhaps a little closer to what you want. Sure it probably won't go the whole way to being an anarchistic
forum. But so long as members like you keep fighting it won't become a totalitarian domain either (and I consider myself a member like you).

We don't need to agree on everything to push this mission of ours forward together.

I've had heated discussions with just about every member of leadership over one issue or another (and of course quite a few other members). If there is one thing I've learned from them is that we all don't need to agree, we just need to treat eachother with respect, and stuff will get done.

[eternaltraveler]

if I were you i'd think a little bit more about Laz's suggestion that you volunteer for leadership. Although we are now trying to do much more of our business in the full member area. As jay mentioned we've been through some rough times, but they are essentially over, and we need to make a conscious effort to get over this once bitten twice shy crap )

[Mind]

The institute's mission is to conquer death.....not to be a general meeting place for Immortalists (although it works fine for that purpose).

If we turn the place into a free-for-all, nothing will get done and the forums will look a lot like these forums at the myspace forever young page. This page started out good because there were 2 or 3 Imminst members that moderated the forums quite strictly. Once the moderation stopped, it became a free-for-all and now the forums are full of porn, commercial spam, and god knows what else. We have spent a looooooooong time trying to build up the quality of discussion here in the boards, and the moderation policies have worked well thus far.

Lightowl, why does the Methuselah Foundation moderate its forums? Why does MF have rules? Why can't any person in the world just go on to the webpage and start deciding how the foundation should spend its funds?

This thought that members have no clue what is going on with respect to moderation is false. IT IS FALSE. IT IS FALSE!!! The moderation policies are known to everyone who cares to look or ask. Whenever a post is moderated, the member who made the post is notified why the action was taken (that way, if they didn't know the rules, they will in the future). Moderators have been selected in the past by their actions in the forums and by their contributions. This ensures we have mature rational adults helping to run the show. If we turn over moderation to the members, there will undoubtedly be cliques that form that try to take over certain topics. Some other members may be bullied away from the Institute. Some members will use the forums for viral marketing. These problems are all things we have encountered in the past and we have learned from them. Now we are supposed to just throw it all away?!! The rules that are in place are there for a reason, and it is not because the leaders want their own private dictatorship. Can't anyone understand this?

If the role of moderation is expanded it MUST BE HIGHLY supervised. We can't let anonymous cranks, trolls, and viral marketers take over the forums.

[Mind]

For some reason there is strong resistance to freedom of expression and choice on this board.

Is that a joke? Seriously?

That is the most wrong statement I have read in years. Anyone can post anything in the free speech forum without fear of moderation, as long it is not against U.S. law.

[Live Forever]

This thought that members have no clue what is going on with respect to moderation is false. IT IS FALSE. IT IS FALSE!!!

I am a little unclear. Is it true or false?

[tung]